Menu

One graph that ends the climate change debate

Bonus 1 Page 4

Climate computer models always fail not only because of their lack of real-world data that is necessary to accommodate all possible influences on the climate and their feedback interactions. Climate computer models also fail because they are not an application of science to data, but a manipulation of data to achieve preconceived results. Dr J. Scott Armstrong, International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, International Symposium on Forecasting, author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, on January 28, 2009 made the following quotes in a statement on a study of IPCC climate computer models lack of scientific application:

~We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated.~

~Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen.~

~Even if it were possible to forecast climate changes, it would still be necessary to forecast the effects of climate changes. In other words, in what ways might the effects be beneficial or harmful? Here again, we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts—as opposed to speculation—despite our appeals for such studies.~

~To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting.~

~Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.~

Climate computer models are nothing more than “stories” created as propaganda to argue the global-warming-adherents’ case. No science here.

Question: How important is it to you that an understanding of the global climate be based on the empirical evidence of science instead of speculation, opinion and manipulation of data of unscience?